capital and liquidity requirements and i mean, is your view that the bassle 3 approach is just the wrong approach and we should be using a different strategy or that we should be amending somewhat and adding other features to bassle three? >> one feature that's very important that i guess hasn't come up, which many of the american regulators feel very strongly about, and at least continental regulators don't seem to feel strongly enough, given inevitable practical problems and identifying risks and appropriate capital requirement against different risks, there ought to be -- you can think of it partly as a backstop. there ought to be an overall leverage requirement. the risk-based assets are not small, but there are many banking assets that aren't covered at all by the risk-based

approach. and there's been some interesting studies recently i've read about, that said looking backwards, what can we say about what banks did best during the crisis and which is it worse? and they concluded that the banks that had the biggest capital, whether or not they conform to bassle two at that point, did the best. and they did the best because capital was allocated. the united states thought it out years ago to the extent we had anything and gradually developed the leverage ratio. and with much fighting, tleverae ratio was kept in the united states with bassle one and two at a quite low level. the feeling in the united states, i think i can say, is yes, you ought to have a leverage ratio and it ought to be higher than what they're

talking about in bassle, significantly higher than what they're talking about in bassle. but i don't know whether that will ever be agreed in bassle but yes, i think that may be more important than the risk-based standard. i mean this is the way you get at the fact that some important risks are not covered at all by bassle. now the difficulty with it is, is we used to have it that way. they said okay, we got one capital standard for the whole bank we're not going to buy -- in american terms we're not going to buy government securities anymore because we just want to hold things that are more profitable. we don't want to allocate 5% capital against government securities. and whatever you're doing, there are going to be games played. it's inevitable. so you try to make up the rules somehow anticipate that as best

you can. but i really would say strongly that i think the risk based standard ought to be self-invented by leverage ratio. >> so leverage ratio to set the floor, to set the floor. >> yes. >> yes that's -- and then a risk-based mechanism. >> sometimes it may not always be the floor. it may be part. >> good point. i mean that chimes in very much -- i suppose some fds comments we had here talking about the complexity that's of capital and liquidity requirements as in a sense potentially being part of the problem itself. that's something that tends to lead to gaming as well. is that a view you would take too? >> yes. part of the problem with bassle two as i understand it, apart from the obvious omissions of sovereign debt and mortgages, is

they struggled for ten years to come up with bassle two. by the time they came up with it we had a big crisis. but they were struggling over how do you evaluate risk? and they thought, well, you know, originally they said, we'll let the standard & poor's and moody's and so forth. we know how good that was at the end. they said we don't want to rely -- this is an outsider too. they said banks that have a good internal risk base system we will give a lot of weight to. we will see whether we like the system and we like the system we'll rely upon the bank system. and that sounded perfectly reasonable but we found out a lot of banks that thought they had a good system did not have a good system. they broke down. all i'm saying is complicated how do you avoid the complications? the complicated will break down

too. i come back to very simple thing, a few simple rules, statutory rules, can't be changed -- can't easily be changed, ought to be the backbone of this. the most important one is the reconciliation procedure. now we have a reconciliation procedure in dodd/frank. most of the people in the market say i know, but it won't work. forget about it. and we'll be back in too big to fail. it would be helped if we get a uk/u.s. agreement, little harder to say. and if we can get a simpler one we have all the better. but i think we have common ground on proprietary trading and hedge funds and equity funds, handled differently but at least there's common ground there.

and i hope we get common ground on a leverage ratio. >> could i just pick -- something on the leverage ratio to push a little bit more. one of the issues and you've raised it, be sort of i think you called it the unfinished reforms about the nature of bank capital and a question about the usefulness of contingent debt instruments. do you have a comment on that as we think through the leverage ratio? >> i know that's a big issue and it's a trade within europe. for some reason or another this was proposed in the united states back with the latin american debt crisis. that's how old i am. as a measure and we had an internal banking crisis following that. this idea of convertible debt, converting into equity and certain conditions was thrown out at that time, particularly the then chairman of the fdic. was pushing it. the banks never have liked it.

people in the market tend so say sounds good, but won't work. people won't buy the securities. if you get this risk in buying debt securities might as well buy equity in the first place. from the bank's point of view they think it's too expensive. it's on the table now and i think that ought to be looked at very closely and it would be good to have -- it's not an area you need common ground in every country, but if it's good in europe it ought to be good in the united states too. >> could i just ask you almost passed the contrarian view, because one of the issues we testled with and i'm sure you do as well, how do you get safer banks on the one hand and yet, fuel sxheconomic growth on the other. just -- is there a risk, sort of the general movement towards

tighter capital and liquidity standard could choke off lending and economic recovery? i don't know if you have some comments on the experience in the u.s. which may be a little different from us in the uk? >> i mean theoretically it's possible. i don't think we're in the range where that's relevant frankly. bank lending involves risks. >> yeah. >> i guess in my head those risks are socially useful. if they're not overdone. you want banks to make loans and make loans to small businesses and risky businesses but you don't want them to do subprime mortgages with no down payment and no credit history and all the rest. get some kind of a balance. >> mr. volcker, i wanted to ask you a little bit about the wholesale markets and banking. but you've set out some wonderful insights and you said a moment ago we need a few simple rules.

the volcker rule is a simple rule. why does it need -- >> sounds simple, doesn't it? >> why does it need such a vast complex amount of regulation to enact it? >> pardon me? >> why -- the volcker rule is a simple rule. why does such a simple rule require vast quantity of complex regulation to make it happen? >>. >> i don't think it does. i don't think it requires some regulation. you know, part of this is power of my opponents. how many times have you heard that the role -- the proposed role a year ago was 300 pages long. it wasn't 300 pages long. it was 35 pages long and at 160 ba pages of questions that lobbyists said would work. won't work, we have a 300-page

rule. i'm cheating a little bit. the rule was 35 pages and had an appendix of 30 or 35 pages laying out the metrics i was talking about. now i hope they're getting this better. this comes back to this vexing question, principles against rules. and there's no doubt that the american legal system, american habits say we want a rule clear and simple, black and white, so we know when we're obeying the rule. they don't say we want to know how to get around it too but that's part of the deal. and you take that attitude, there were 400 bank lobbyists down there lobbying the agencies on this regulation. and make a million, spell this out exactly, we don't like it.

how do you tell the precise difference between a proprietary deal and a -- i think you can shortcircuit all that by relying on what i said earlier. making sure that general policy is clear, incorporated in the bank's internal -- they can write the regulation themselves internally, subject to review and then you look at the statistics. and that's not a huge -- shouldn't be a new imposition because they all have these daily statistics anyway. they might have to tweak them a bit or add one or two but it's not that they're starting on vir begin territory with a whole new reporting burden. they already have the reporting burden inside the bank. >> thank you. and turning to the whole concept of wholesale banking, you've mentioned earlier that figure you've stated before of $60

trillion of cdss, $6 trillion of that actual debt, and in the article that i read, you went on to say over the years banks have become much more obsessed with trying to make money by trading between themselves. is there any actor or practical common sense commercial purpose to the instruments that are being traded? is it necessary at all? >> well, see, the proposals made, okay, credit default swap, that's kind of an insurance policy. you take out -- you will pay for somebody else to take the credit risk. as you pay in fire insurance or anything else. now, people point out the difference between credit default swap and insurances it's against the law to take out fire insurance on your neighbor's

property. for fear you burn it up. but nobody is -- nobody is preventing ten credit default swaps against the same security. and so the proposal said okay you can have a credit default swap against your loan. you own the loan, xyz company, and you want to sell a credit default swap or buy it, you can buy it, pay a fee and buy it, okay, that's your insurance policy. that sounds reasonable, right? insurance. that's what it is. but then they say, but, you know, the person selling that insurance has to have a market for derivatives so that he can hedge his risk. so he sold the policy to you. he now has the credit risk and he better lay off some of that credit risk to somebody else.

and now we have two derivatives and maybe three derivatives. exponentially it rises and in the end it's not anything, it's a pure -- people are taking the risk without the instrument or without the basic loan. >> does that activity multiply risk in the system rather than spreading it? >> i think demonstrably it has led at the very least to these interconnections between -- it's certainly a big, big amount of trading that involves many instituti institutions. it's not, you know, you're not playing just with one other institution or not just playing with yourself. you're playing when the derivative goes bad, god knows how many other people are involved in that. and that's what we're feared to happen when lehman went down. that was cleaned up pretty well,

i think in the end. but there's undoubtedly a lot of interconnections. >> if we have -- if we identify social use i think the phrase used earlier, socially useful or socially required side of banking the payment system, you have the deposit collection the loans to small businesses, to proper mortgages to houses, but equally you have a required commercial side in investment banking, the sourcing of capital fo expansion, initial public offerings, all which is useful commercial or social activity, it seems this bubble on the end -- >> that's what -- in the bank -- >> exactly. but there's this bubble at the end where a bunch of guys selling things that nobody wants, nobody needs, aren't useful, don't contribute to commerce and what we're saying is we'll let them -- like the horse racing industry here, running horses, and then the

bookie industry over there, just betting on it and make money. my question is to date we're talking about how we contain that and control it. nobody seems to be asking the fundamental question of should it happen at all in the first place? >> i'm a modest fellow. my imagination doesn't go that a fall about these things. there is some function in trading activities whether it's derivatives, they buy something, they want to sell it, you need some traders. the more argument you get the more liquid that market is, by liquid, they mean ease to sell without any change in price, the better, that's a change in market efficiency, i say yes up

to a point. but liquidity is not a additive good no matter how much you have. because it may lead to behavior that in the end is unfortunate. if people can buy very complicated risky stuff they probably shouldn't be in in the first place, and they buy it and say i can sell it tomorrow, that's a very liquid market. maybe too liquid. if they're buying that kind of stuff maybe that leads to behavior that in the end -- this point is often made with respect to pension funds actually. rather endowment funds that have traded much more actively and was really quite dramatic in terms of the turn joevg of these institutions and they can do it because stocks and bonds are so easily tradeable. but at the end of the day is it

really good these institutions have been turning their positions so much. you would have a nice argument about that. >> thank you. >> mr. volcker, going back to this much quoted statistic about your rule being turned into a 300 page rule book that you mentioned a minute ago, are we to take it from your relies that you think the integrity of what you proposed is still there, despite all this lobbying by banks to chip away at the edges of it, rather than you taking a view that the integrity has been undermined by making it more complex than it need be? >> well, really tells the initial regulation was more complex than it had to be. i don't know what the new regulation will say. i do not believe that the thrust is being chipped away, no. maybe there is a particular

deminization expectation for risk funds and hedge funds that really is, not going to be a make or break thing. the law is pretty precise about what you can do. they'll try to find a way around it. but no, look, the amount of proprietary trading in american commercial banks is today -- i have no measure but it's without question diminished. because even if the regulation is not fully effective at the moment, they can see you coming. they've all -- we're talking about relatively few banks that do this. don't forget that. you're talking about five or six banks in the united states and you want to say, eight or ten that fight with you, but only six or seven banks in the united states that do this in big volume. most banks, they may occasional

occasionally, but it's rare. they used to -- some of the big banks, i guess most of them, had a division two years ago to set up proprietary trading, some of them said proprietary trading, sometimes they had another title, but they were for proprietary trading but they kept separate from theest a esee rest of it. they are outlawed by the law in any interpretation. you can't have a unit of a bank sitting out there doing proprietary trading. now the only argument is, okay, so the proprietary trading moved three trading desks down on the trading floor and he now calls it market making. many of those aggressive traders are less because they can go somewhere else. they can go to a hedge fund.

it hasn't affected us. i think flagrant violations you can identify. >> sounds like three quarters still at least. >> at least. >> just going back, the paper that you gave us has a section on it, titled "vicars, volcker under the ghost of glass steagall. i want us to be clear of your view of this because going back to the question asked, there is some confusion i think or misunderstanding about this. you said in this paper that the approaches of vicars and linnen appear close to the form of glass steagall restrictions in the u.s. which broke down over time and that made a precautionary lesson. hearing you describe your own proposal, to me that sounds more like a glass steagall two type

proposal because it's proposing a complete separation between two sets of activities, rather than a ring fence within the same company. so who is closer to glass steagall two? is it you or vickers? >> they both have relevance. i said that because it would allow more functions in the overall organization than my rule. but you're right. on the original design of glass steagall, it changed over the years, but in the original designs -- well, it -- what i was going to say wasn't quite true. absolutely prohibiting trading but it didn't. it permitted some trading in the bank itself, certain securities, which got broadened, and it did not prohibit so-called dealing

effectively in the subsidiary. now what i think of is, there were lots of rules in the united states between the bank and its subsidiaries. so that's what made it kind of restrictions on dealing with the subsidiaries, not as strong as vickers at all. in that respect vickers is much stronger than glass steagall, attempting to be much stronger. i say to the extent they exist in glass steagall they broke down over time and i fear that might happen in vickers too, yes. >> can i ask you about just one or two areas as we come towards the end. we're often told i suspect in the united states and certainly in the uk, that the financial services industry contributes a huge amount to the overall economy and, therefore, we should be very, very careful with doing anything that might spook this industry.

but you've also said that a lot of the energy and innovation in recent years has been pretty worthless is your famous quote about the only useful innovation about being the atm machine in recent decades. >> that may have been a little far reaching. >> do you think the contribution of financial services to the overall economy has really grown in recent years or has most of this growth been in terms of its own size and the rewarzs within it? >> well, i'm afraid i think a lot of it is spinning your own wheels and making money doing it. there is a calculation, i don't -- that the losses from trading, not just proprietary trading, but the losses from trading in 2008 in american

banks was all kwaequal in size all the money trading in this century. i think i came out even. looked very possible for a while, but when you got in a crisis it blew up. i didn't calculate that number. i can't even give you a reference for it. but that point has been made you can go check and see what it says. but you know, a lot of this is, i think, basically, you know, the banks, with this clever financial engineering, to make up all kinds of complex instruments, the simplest version, if you give us your money for five years, you will -- we will guarantee you against any loss and if the stock market goes up, we'll

double whatever the stock market goes up until that happens. and, you know, not going to take any loss, may double my money in the stock market. you kind of forget back in those days when you paid some interest. you would give them the money for five years that's 25% in interest you're not making. right away. they're able to offer that deal because they got guys down there, my grandson used to be one of them, they go down there and they work on their computers and they buy options and puts and calls and so forth, and they can shape that instrument in way that the bank isn't ending up with any risk or any substantial risk. that particular structured transaction in fact they're not going to sell it to you unless they're making 2% or 1% or something. you can argue that's a useful service. i'm not stopping anybody from doing it.

but an awful lot of activity of that sort goes on. which i doubt makes an enormous contribution to risk taking, economic activity, whatever. a lot of this is pure activity, some of it is counterproductive for the reason i suggested. it's all to the extent the complexities of this led to the breakdown then it's counterproductive for sure. >> following the crisis, slerneslern e certainly in the uk there's been a lot of criticism of regulators and the role that regulators played in not blowing the whistle, not as to use a phrase, taking the punch ball away at the height of the party, what do you think about the quality of leadership in a banking industry? say the regulators, why did so few bankers themselves speak

out, if any, against the culture of excessive reward, risk taking, incentives and all the rest of it that led to this? what do you think about the quality of leadership within the financial institution itself. >> this is part of the whole cultural and intellectual climate of the times. the amount of money that some traders are making, and the amount of money these executives are making, at the top, you often see the statistics that maybe the chairman of a bank when i was in banking might make 50 times or 40 times what the average employee makes. now he makes 500 times the average employee makes. it's a difference in scale. and may be smarter than they used to be in those days and

more aggressive and they take advantage of enormous complexity and they get people who understand the complexity and can make money on the complexity and may end up taking big risks in the economy but in the short run they're making a lot of money. i do think that's changing. nothing like adversity to change people's minds. and i think bankers have begun to realize they kind of let the rules of the game change, not because -- partly because of regulation but partly because of losses that were taken and the instability and you see some changes. i don't know what the changes yesterday, but i -- interesting speculation. >> justin has one more question for you. then i'll ask if you have

anything else you would like to add. we've kept you quite long enough. >> mr. volcker, based on what they were just saying a few minutes ago, historically london was restored to a position as a major international financial center through essentially regulatory and tax ar ba traj in the '60s with the opening openi euro dollar market to evade certain issues in the united states. and that moved to a lot of assets over here. you have commented that roughly 85% of u.s. banks overseas assets are in london and the rest is small change essentially. how much danger do you see of a seismic change similar to the reopening of the euro market if london london had strict regulation through regulatory arbitrary. people upping and moving that

85% somewhere completely different. >> well the argument you hear all the time. those are the only two senators now that have the capability to size the knowledge, whatever to really do this in a big way. but it will grow over time. and i think the more we internationalize some of the basic regulations, that's what it was all agent. level the playing field. it's obviously not ideal that the united states has the local role, but i don't think it's entirely terrible either. because they are both ending up in the same way to see which one

is better. and i would prefer otherwise, but i don't think that's the end of the world for british banks or american banks. or for either one. you get europe to follow suit, as they should. they are not the enormous threat right this minute, but they could become obviously. >> but by threat, you mean threat to the financial system? >> yeah, yeah. just to kind of benefit to the economy. characterization of all kinds of statistics and i'm going to give you an uncertain statistic. we added statistics for value added by industry in the united states. i'm sure you have them here. it's pretty tricky. it's pretty straight forward in the manufacturing business.

if you look at value added numbers in the united states for the first decade, the decade before the crisis rough ly, you'll see phenomenal numbers, value added in the united states of the financial industry went from 5 to 10. if you look at it in real terms, it went up very little. so you had all this additional activity and all the additional profits yet somehow the statisticians said there was no technique over what you had before. it's hard to believe that those calculations for finance are extremely difficult to make.

but at least it's in the direction of saying a lot of activity here that didn't have any striking relationship. i'll tell you, the machine does improve productivity. >> one final question that we haven't asked you is whether you think a lot more could be done by tightening up criminal sanctions for serious wrong doing. for bringing in tighter, stronger criminal sanctions for serious wrong doing. >> it's frustrating because there has been some wrong doing, but what people say, it's very hard to see actual violations of criminal law. you can see a lot of bad

behavior, but if you have a case to bring to the jury that beyond doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt this guy had in his mind that he was doing that deliberately. it's easier to bring insider trading cases, but that's not easy. that's the one place we're seeing people being put in jail. >> i promised you before we started that i would give you an opportunity to say anything -- you had a note there right in the beginning that you thought you might want to make. i kept within the two hours. >> i appreciate your asking when you sit here listening to all these unreasonable propositions, but i would -- i said it many times. i think volcker, dodd-frank are

both the actions to perception of the same problem. and they have all some effectiveness i hope. it's not the only problem. we have problems of resolution authority. but it is a problem. >> you have given us a great deal of food for thought. we're extremely grateful that around the country. tonight at 8:a.m. on the campaign networking c-span we'll take you to dallas, texas for senate debate. the two men are buying for the

seat vacated by senator kay bailey. live coverage tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> i have to be honest with you, i love these debates. these things are great. -- [cheering and applause] and i think it's interesting that the president still doesn't have an agenda for a second term. don't you think that it's time for him to finally put together a vision what he'd do in the next four years if e were elected. he's got to come up with that over the weekend. there's only one debate left on monday. [cheering and applause] so let's recap what we learned last night. his tax plan doesn't add up. his jobs plan doesn't create jobs. his deficit reduction plan adds to the deficit. so iowa, you know, everybody here heard of the new deal, you've heard of the fair deal, you've heard of the square deal,

mitt romney's trying to selling you a sketchy deal. we are not buying it. watch and engage monday as president obama and mitt romney meet in their final debate. moderated by cbs bob from lynn university in florida. our debate preview starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern followed by the debate at 9:00 and your reaction at 10:30 all live on c-span, c-span radio, an online at c-span.org. >> i use it in a business capacity. i love keeping up with the hearings. if i figure out what's dwoipg on capitol hill live. i go to c-span. it's thankful for able to watch it live. i feel current and up-to-date. most recently i covered all the technology. cybersecurity was the last one i watched. i needed to know what was going on. i didn't wait to wait for a coverage a couple of hours

later. i turned to c-span. >> she watches c-span on direct tv. created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you by a publish service. former governor and health and human services tom any thompson debated tammy baldwin last night. it was the second debate of the u.s. senate seat. cook political report rates this race at tossup. 55-minute debate was hosted by wisconsin public tv. >> moderator: let's welcome the u.s. senate candidates tommy tampson and tammy baldwin. [applause] [applause] >> moderator: our format tonight mixes the traditional

candidate q & a unmoderated interaction between the candidates. several times over the next hour, the candidates will talk with each other on the issues. these will be stretches of one on one conversation charles and i will not participate in the exchanges in my way. >> moderator: instead it's a chance for them to challenge their opponent for their details on more position and have a healthy exchange of idea. >> you can join in the conversation by going to wisconsin vote.org. for a live web check. and so we begin. our first topic, jobs in the economy. a subject that was high on the list of voter concerns as we traveled the state. >> jobs is the number one. i know, a lot of people myself included. so i think jobs is a biggest thing light now for wisconsin.

>> i'm worried about once i graduate am i going able to find my career? if not would have to relocate somewhere else? >> it's my age that -- it's holding me down, you know. it's my age. nobody calls me back. >> moderator: and so with that backdrop, we ask our first question. economics 101 is all about supply and demand. if it's a demand that promotes business expansion and hiring, what is the best way to an increased demand for products and services and stimulate the economy? this question goes first to governor thompson. you have 90 seconds. thank you for having us. those for watching thank you. when i was governor, i was faced with a similar situation. i worked with the democrats who cut taxes 91 times. we created a state that was very open for business, create

742,000 jobs. our unemployment was down to 32%. we were able to establish a state that was on fire. in regards to economic growth and development, job creation, up employment down below 2%. anybody that wanted a job could have one. that's my record. i'm a reformer. my opponent on the other side -- a paper company. there was a rule put in by apa the mack rule. it's going cost the paper company about 7500 jobs. some of the jobs here. my opponent she voted with epa. she voted with epa and those jobs could be lost next year because of the epa rules and regulations on boilers. the paper industry is a very crucial to this area, state of wisconsin, and i want to tell the people of this state just like i've always fought for wisconsin, creating jobs and

opportunity, i will continue to do so. ly not give epa the opportunity to close down paper companies in wisconsin like my opponent does. >> moderator: congresswoman baldwin. baldwin: thank you for sponsors the debate and the audiences for participate. you ask about demand and the impact on jobs. and right now the middle class in this state is struggling. census bureau figures say medium income in the united states has gone down 14.5% over the last decade. we're not talking about the recent recession. we're talking about the decade. and i think we need a plan moving forward for jobs, for deficit reduction, taxes, et. cetera, that keeps the middle class on the strength and the growth of the middle class at heart. when people are extra money in their prospects, they're going spend it in small business

across the state. growth is one of the key -- having people with discretionary income is key to growth. i want to talk, i agree we are in the heart of the paper producing region of wisconsin, that's why i introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year. got wrapped in to a larger bill, and signed in to law by the president. it levels the flaying field and stops china's theets. that's the real -- senator kole and i met with epa secretary lisa jackson and ujed for more time. i hear a lot of my opponent about his time in the '80s and '90s but the truth is he's been a partner at one of the most lobbying firms in washington. fighting for the very powerful interest. i think we can continue this investigation in the next segment. as we said at the start during part of the debate the candidates are on their own pressing one another on the

issue. charles and i step out of the away. >> moderator: we are going 0 to sit on our hands. the idea is to get the candidates to provide nor detail, provide more interaction. go at it. baldwin: these unmoderated segments run about six minutes. and we're not kidding charles and are i not involved. >> moderator: we turn them loose now on the question of how 0 to growth the economy and with it jobs. there's no distribution on who speaks first or last. we won't runny interference. the floor is yours. baldwin: let me entrepreneur in. wisconsin is the state that makes things, shifts, papers, tools, engines. and manufacturing has taken a hit in recent years. it's why i championed bipartisan legislation that i referred to earlier. signed in to law, to level the playing field to crack down on china's cheating where by they

subsidize the paper industry there to the tune of billions of dollars. that's not enough. we have seen too many of our jobs outsourced. we have to get rid of the progress i have incentive in the u.s. tax codes that leads folks to bring jobs overseas, and frankly, my opponent, not only refuses to repeal those but has a huge addition to that in his proposal i heard him talking about throughout this campaign. and lastly, we in manufacturing need to promote buy america policy. when we're securing our homeland self-defense and defense. we ought to be using u.s. tax dollars for u.s. jobs. and it's something i've been pushing. we have more to do. that's just a manufacturing economy. we also need to protect the very investment that we need to grow. that's education, innovation,

that's infrastructure, and unfortunately the paul ryan plan that tommy tampson has campaigned on throughout the campaign is one that would give an enormous tax break to the very wealthy, pay for it by increasing middle class taxes and cut for the very investment we're talking about in order to grow our economy investments like education, infrastructure, and research and innovation. [laughter] thompson: thank you. i cut taxes 91 times when i was governor. she's voted for 155 tax increases. i cut regulations, she with boot for epa against our paper industry. they are going lose 7500 jobes because my o'opponent didn't

have the courage to stand up against epa. sky assure that won't happen. number three, we have a chance to build the pipeline down from alberta canada, jobs 20,000 jobs could be created. the pipeline from brownsville, several companies from warsaw save way from walk shaw can create jobs. my opponent is against the pipeline. i don't know why. 20,000 jobs possibly hundreds of thousands of oils. we can bring oil down to become energy independent. my opponent is opposed against. it my opponent is on the extreme side of the democratic party. she talks about one bipartisan bill. when the truth of the matter is she voted 98 percent of the time with the political party. she didn't cherry pick, this is the only example. and that was congressman, a

republican bill. she did do anything for 14 years. her 14 years in congress has been about passing three bills. one bill changing the post office in madison's name. that's nice but it certainly doesn't create any jobs. >> i think . >> the truth of the matter is -- >> i'd like to. >> i'm a reformer and i cut taxes, she raises taxes, i cut regulation, she increases regulation, i create jobs, she drives jobs out of the state. >> i want to reflect once again that thompson talking about a lot about the time in the 1980s and 1990s when he was governor of the state. but the fact remains for the last seven years, he's been a partner at the power house lobbying firm in washington, d.c. representing interest that have tried to write their own rules.

and i know we'll be talking shortly about issues like the deficit and taxes where this comes in to play, but outsourcing is one of the key concerns in growing jobs in our economy. and his firm has represented companies from china as well as outsourcers. and he refuses to bear down on the very preverse tax incentives that incentivize people to bring jobs oversea. i want to once again press down on this, he said a number of things that are simply untrue. with regard to the epa and the regulation that he keeps referring to, senator kole and i conducted a meeting with the administrator of epa on behalf of the paper industry just a couple of months ago because this rule was being announced.

we were concerned it wasn't going to be fair to wisconsin paper manufacturers, and we are pressing for changes just so that we can e protect our air, and our water, which paper workers, by the way, cherish as much as you and i do as well as keeping . >> you know, you can talk all night and untruth. the truth of the matter is the resolution was in front of congress. it was in congress to postpone epa and to keep the job and discuss it. you voted against. you talk about taxes. i was in matter creating jobs with lih. aga, i was in an individually -- >> moderator: all right. we'll leave it at that. it worked well. we appreciate that. we are going to move to another issue that separates voters and candidates alike. as we travel the state talking to people, we discovered that the future of health care and medicare was at the forefront of their minds. >> health care is the most important issue for me.

i work in health care i truly believe that everyone should have access to health care regardless of income. >> health care seems to matter to us the most. my husband and myself, he has health problems. i just see and hear of so many people that are falling through the cracks. especially the elderly who can't afford their medicare. >> medicare and medicaid need to be addressed in a big way. you have a huge baby womb. you have enormous health care cost and needs. >> moderator: this question is actually specific to each candidate. now we heard the campaign commercials that have featured both of you making statements about health care. governor thompson your quote saying who better than me to do with programs to do we with medicare and mid candidate. you quoted saying i was government for takeover of medicine but first to you congresswoman baldwin. what did you mean by that? baldwin: i have throughout my time in public service received

more letter on the issue of health care than any other. from people who were battling insurance company abuses. being cut off after one chemotherapy treatment. putting the second one on the credit card. the third on a home equity loan and many going bankrupt. i heard from parents unable to get children with preexisting health conditions any coverage at all. and these abuses and practices needed to be reigned in, and frankly, they were with the affordable care act to a great extent. so specifically there is a role for the federal government, i find that your clip that you showed before asking the question talked about both health care in general and medicare specifically. medicare is a program run by the government. i was raised by my grandparents. i got to see it at a very early

age, the difference that medicare and social security but particularly medicare made in our family's economic security. it is one that i think it's a program that i think is isn't just a program. it's a promise. one that i vow to keep. we need to strengthen and extend the solve sei of medicare, not voucherrize it or do away with it as thompson said himself. >> moderator: governor thompson let me go to you. what did you mean? thompson: what i meant is simple. i was able to reform welfare, came a model for the country. i -- who better than somebody like me to be able to preserve, protect, an improve medicare? my opponent has been in congress for 14 years has not lifted a finger. put in a proposal to save

medicare. medicare is going broke by the year of 2024 bankrupt. i want to save it. i want to make sure that the seniors in america and wisconsin especially are protected. be able to have medicare, and i also want young people to be able to have medicare what they reach 65. if you do nothing it goes brument in the year 2024. that's the answer my opponent has. i want to be able to come with up with a system that protects medicare for all seniors and all those over the age of 50 in the year 2020 are going to have the current medicare. but those 50 and under in the year 2020, you're going to have a choice. not a voucher. that was yesterday's news with somebody else. not me. my program will allow you to have an opportunity to choose medicare if you want to, or the federal employee health benefit

program. the same insurance that the congresswoman and senators and president of the united states has. >> moderator: we get to go to a six minute unmoderated in the next segment. again, we will not be taking part at all. thompson: since she started last time. i think i will answer. okay. >> moderator: go ahead. >> thompson: she talks about national health. she expects you and america to allow the federal government to direct your hospital, your doctor, your pharmacy. she does not believe that obamacare went far enough. she wants the federal government, labeling, to run your health care program. now, i don't think that anybody in america would like to see us take the same kind of program that canada has and run it.

i'm opposed to that. it would be trillions of dollars. and i know that doesn't bother her. while she's been in congress, the debt has gone from $6 trillion to 16 trillion. i believe sincerely, ladies and gentlemen, and a market-biased health care system where you, the individual, have the opportunity to pick your doctor, your hospital, to be able to determine exactly what you want in your health insurance. to be able to put that out for a bid and allow insurance companies to build bid on it. to be able to put individuals in a position they can take care of themselves. 93% of the cost of health care, ladies and gentlemen, goes for well after you get sick. only 7% is used to keep you well in the first place. that is a mistake. let's change it and keep people healthier. when i was governor, i started

-- the best health care program in the country to this day. i also start the senior care, which is also the best elderly program for seniors in america. democrats supported me. my opponent was opposed to it. baldwin: that's not true. i think it's time for me to jump in. i think mccall less than started senior care. gloimp no i did. baldwin: but that's not what we're here to debate about. i think we start with the record on medicare. when thompson left wisconsin in 2001 to join the bush administration, he ran medicare. you could say he it ran in to the ground. when he came, medicare csh came to the administration medicare was approaching bankruptcy in the year 2029. when he left, it was 2020. nine years closer to bankruptcy. that's the tommy thompson record

as secretary under george w. bush. let's talk about that. i believe strongly that seniors need access to affordable prescription drugs. part of the afford account is making sure that medicare can someday negotiate with those drug companies for better prices. the va does and they get discounts of 40 to 60% over what our seniors do. and they should for our veterans. but we should be doing that for the seniors. under tommy's watch it was made illegal to the federal government for medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices for our seniors. the bill wasn't paid for. if you look from today, ten years forward, it's going to add near $8 trillion to our national debt. i believe you pay for things, i support the policy of having seniors have access to

affordable drugs. but you have to pay for it. that's one of the reasons i with we're in the mess we're in. on the larger issues of health careen i supported the affordable health care act. thompson: the truth of the matter is tell the truth. baldwin: i am. thompson: tell the truth that medicare under part d which you voted against 90% of the seniors support. and you also to have realize the deal you're talking about was introduced by bill clinton, if i remember correctly he's a democrat. and it was put in by tom dash l. he was a democrat. and another democrat put it in. [inaudible] and only then it was passed in part d. on a bipartisan basis. i had nothing to do with it. i'm in the congress. you were. and you voted against -- [inaudible] baldwin: mastermind. but you had nothing to do with

it. thompson: if you go to the drugstore and buy your drugs. it was tommy thompson that passed part d. to allow you to do that. it was tammy baldwin who voted against it. baldwin: well, again, the salient point here, during his four years tenure, as secretary under brush, medicare moved nine years closer to bankruptcy. and medicare part d. program is an important program, but it wasn't paid for and it costs us between 700 and $800 billion every ten years. thompson: and you stole -- [inaudible] baldwin: the idea -- aarp said that's not true. we did not change one guaranteed benefit in medicare. in fact we strength end.

thompson: [inaudible] baldwin: aarp said the allegation is simply not true. thompson: you stole from medicare. 0 took it out and used it . you took for obamacare. who would like to see some more money taken out of medicare to fund obamacare. i don't know if anybody does. [applause] >> moderator: let me jump in here. you have 30 seconds far followup on response. you talked about the sweet heart deal with medicare part k. but under the affordable health care act, there was talk among the democrats let's get rid of it. you had an opportunity when the democrats controlled the house and the senate to get rid of it. why didn't it happen? baldwin: i reget it didn't happen. i'm on legislation and have introduced legislation to get rid of the deal. i actually started working on the issue when i first came to congress to try to even before there was a medicare part d., i joined in legislation to allow

medicare to bargain with the drug companies. this is something i won't relent on. i think on the affordable care act we move forward, we make it work for the american people, and we fix what's broken. that's one of the things that's broken. >> moderator: let me follow up with you. why didn't you push for the government to negotiate with drug companies? thompson: because it was not my responsibility. we put in the proposal without that in there. and then on a bipartisan basis, and a conference committee, senator bacchus was a republican put that language in. it was first introduced we the democrats in 1999 congressional session. and they passed it. i'm not a -- i don't vote in congress as you probably know, i'm a secretary. i more the programs that congress passes. doinlt vote on it, i don't write it and i don't introduce. >> moderator: we're going move along. thank you. before we return to q & a.

i want to you to remind you can join in on online conversation by going to wisconsinvote.org. now another question round for the candidates. this time on the issue of taxes and spending. the national debate has brought the middle class front and center each of you takes a position on how to tax individuals and how to treat corporate tax and the loopholes. the question is, how specifically does your platform protect the middle class and we go first to governor thompson. thompson: first off, i cut taxes 91 times. my opponent ordered for 155 tax increases. during the discussion on affordable care there are 21 tax increases in the affordable care act. most of those individuals are going to hit the middle class. there's a proposal in there that you're going get taxed on your health insurance proposal. and 87% of the responsibility

for 4-7d billion is going to -- strictly on middle class. the lower income class, i don't think that's right. my opponent ordered for every single one of those 21 taxes taxing for middle class of america. take a look at my schedule, when i was governor, i cut income taxes three times. i cut property taxes by over a billion dollars. not once but twice. and you know, my opponent was in the assembly at that time. most of the democrats voted with me. congresswoman baldwin voted against it. property taxes are a huge tax on middle class. she voted against it. every chance my opponent gets to vote far tax increase she will vote for it. 155 tax increases, 21 in the affordable care act, the obamacare, most of those impact adversely on the middle class.

>> moderator: congresswoman baldwin. baldwin: on the issue of taxes, there's probably no stronger contrast between myself and my opponent. i introduced the buffett rule to address the fact that people making over a million dollars a year were too often paid at lower tax rates. like our nominee for president on the republican ticket romney who is paying 13.9%. he's paying at the lower rate than middle class wisconsin families like nurses and construction workers. thompson has embraced and campaigned for many months on the ryan plan. which according to tax policy center increases the tax cut for our very wealthiest by $26 5,000 on average for millionaires like himself. now the middle class taxes. very recently -- baldwin: that's

false. baldwin: this is not the exchange time yesterday. i continued to support moving forward middle class and small business tax cuts. the very program i told you about that my opponent supports, the ryan plan, raises taxes according to the joint economic committee on middle class families by roughly $1,300. i talk already about the from verse incentives in the tax code that prompt companies to bring jobs overseas. i want to bring those to an end. my opponent wants to double down. >> moderator: we move to the six minute unmoderated segment. i know, you want to keep talking. feel free to talk to each other. thompson: you're wrong. i center a tax bill that is different than paul ryan's you keep saying putting me in with paul ryan. my bill doesn't reduce the taxes on the wealthy at all. my bill allows for individuals

to make a choice whether or not you want a flat tax. if you want a flat tax, you sit down with the gross income, we you can do it in the halftime between the packers and the bears. put in the percentage. you can't skim the system, you can do it. you have enough time left over to get a class of beer out of the fridge. you want to do all the deductions, fine, you are have it. you have the choice. no changes whatsoever. you make the determination as to which tax you want to go. she keeps throwing out that i'm for the millionaires. i have -- to lower that. whatsoever subpoena she keeps making this up on a whole clause. baldwin: let me be specific. at the republican state convention, you said i am going to be the 51st senator to pass the ryan budget. days before your primary, you ran an ad on the radio saying i will be the 51st senate vote to

pass the ryan budget. you can't at this late date say i have nothing to do with the ryan budget. which gives tax breaks to millionaires like yourself and average $26 5,000, and to pay for it raises miblgdz class taxes. it's a joint economic committee and the tax policy center. butlet move on from that. thompson: let's not. the truth of the matter is, i had my tax plan up on my web page since i started. it was not the ryan plan. it's the tommy thompson plan. take a look. you might like it. because, you know, -- you wouldn't. it doesn't raise taxes. you only want to raise taxes 155 tax increases. i lowered taxes. i adopt raise them. in regards to this buffett rule, i want you to know, it's the buffett rule. it's the only thing she's ever

put in. it would raise enough money, ladies and gentlemen, to run the government for 11 hour finance would cost 750,000 jobs. so i would say that's a pretty expensive tax. lose 750,000 jobs, and run the government for 11 hours. baldwin: the issue is the fairness in the tax code that's why i introduced the buffett rule. it is wrong that people who make over a million dollars a year shouldn't have to pay at least the same tax rate as hard working, middle class families. the corporate tax side is also indies array. i'd say it's rigged. there's a couple of problems in play here. one is that too many has been members of congress and my opponent is included in this have taken a pledge to a washington, d.c., lobbyist by the name of governor norquist, where by they sworn they will not ever ask those with the most privilege to do more.

to do their fair share. thompson: that's plain -- [inaudible] baldwin: you signed the grover norquist pledge. thompson: and you signed the progressive tax bill. here's somebody who teamed up with the most liberal, far reaching, far out taxing people in congress. she's a vice chairman of it. she introduced a budget, ladies and gentlemen, that would increase taxes by 3.9 trillion. the tax system we have right now bringing in $2.3 trillion. she wants to raise it that to $3.9 million. baldwin: it's less than the ryan budget. thompson: president obama says that's crazy. it's going to raise taxes on the middle class. nancy pelosi, who has to turn left and factual to my opponent because she is so extreme. she said we can't do that. they wouldn't take it up. i'm telling you, my opponent can only say one thing, raise taxes,

increase spending. that's been herman that ever since she's been in the legislature, ever since she's been in congress. baldwin: a couple of things. first of all, i do believe given the challenges facing our nation that for anyone to have a fair shot, everyone has to do -- thompson: you agree it's something we should have? baldwin: the romney plan is $5 trillion. thompson: over ten years. thompson: 3.9 million is one year. baldwin: no, it's not. let's move on. why is the system rigged? we read stories all the time of fortunate 500 companies that some of the most profitable corporation of our time paying zero or next to zero in taxes. why is it rigged? because the -- [inaudible] the wealthy, have a legion of

lobbyist putting in special loopholes and tax breaks. we know our tax code is loaded with them. [inaudible conversations] thompson: truth of the matter is you have been in congress for 13 years. you have done nothing in. you haven't put anything in to close one loophole. baldwin: i worked to expand the child tax credit and all of -- thompson: all the corporation taxes that you never put any legislation, congresswoman, you just said it. you don't want to come out and somehow say corporations are bad. guess what we have to close the loophole. i wasn't in congress. you were. i was back in wisconsin creating jobs. something you probably don't understands. >> moderator: it looks like you're getting comfortable with the unmoderated area. we appreciate that. we're going to move on and talk on the topic of foreign policy. we'd like each candidates to answer this question. if it becomes clear that iran has nuclear availability under

what circumstances, if any, would you support putting us soldiers on the ground in iran. and the question goes to congresswoman baldwin. baldwin: thank you. the ambitiouses of iran to gain the capacity to build a nuclear weapon is an enormous threat to our world, to our country, to the region, and certainly to our ally, israel, in fact to them it's an extentacle threat. and this is a threat that i take enormously seriously, and we cannot let iran become capable of making a nuclear weapon. and it's why i believe that the president has all options on the table approach is the right approach.

when you look at it carefully over the years as conditions have changed, and dealt cooperatively and high in collaboration with senior israeli and u.s. intelligence and military officials. and i believe right now we are in agreement that the crime -- crippling sanctions i supported are beginning to do their job. but but we cannot let iran become capingble of informer manufacturing a nuclear weapon. and so i absolutely support israel's right to defend itself, and we leave -- you never go in to a war without having exit strategy in plan for victory.

glover the hall cost existed, or ever happened. he believes that he can wipe out the country of israel. he believes that if he gets a nuclear bomb he close the straits of hormuz. closing the straits of hormuz would close down all oil production coming in to the world. would have an economic disaster. i believe without a doubt that more severe sanctions we can have, the better off we are. my opponent voted against sanctions in 2001, 2006, and 2009, 2010 and we have seen $60 ,000 from ab organization that supported iran. i cannot believe anybody would take money from an organization supports that madmen, in iran and takes $60 ,000 for her campaign. that's why she was against the

sanction. because she's running if the united states senate now, she beliefs that she would now have to vote for sanctions. which she did for the first time this year. i think it's because she got a belief she's running for the senate she better do that. i also believe we can never allow iran, ladies and gentlemen, to have a nuclear bomb. okay. >> moderator: looks like you're ready to jump in. baldwin: i am. >> moderator: go for it. baldwin: first of all, i have voted for sanctions starting when i first came to the united states congress in iran. you have your facts wrong. but you don't all of them wrong. i indeed on two occasions, i believe -- thompson: four occasions. baldwin: i think you're incorrect. believe there was a prospect in iran from regime change from within. many whom look at the region

carefully saw there were hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters who took to the streets and stood up to -- [inaudible] and i felt it very important we send a message to those people wementedded them to succeed in regime u change from within. especially when we were stakes about sending wisconsin young men and women in to horme's way ilgd rather see the regime change happen from within. as you know, you probably read the same histories i have, they were brutally beaten back by the iranian government. i didn't think, i think we missed an opportunity for regime change there and so we had to go back to the tactic of crippling sanctions. crippling sanctions. are that's where we are right

now. i want to add one thing, i was so disturbed after having heard some of your rhetoric around my position on iran to a have read a report hours before taking this stage you have tens of thousands of dollars in investments in companies that do business with iran including a company that teams up with iran doing uranium mining in africa. i find that shocking, and if you want to be tough in on iran we have to isolate iran. we have to make sure that companies don't do -- excuse me, companies don't do business to make sure that they are isolated in world stage and that's one of the why ways that we are going be successful. i still hope without war. but with the tough sanctions.

thompson: iran is building a knock already capability, 175 feet in the ground. you would not be building a peaceful nuclear energy plan 175 feet in the ground. it's only a matter of time they gate nuclear bomb. we have to do everything we possibly can, ladies and gentlemen, to study iran. my opponent four different times, she mentions the fact that unrest. well, it would have been nice if she did something about the unrest when people were crying out from help from america. she did nothing. she did send a letter to the palestinian when israeli put up a black candidate supporting the palestinian against the israelis. she received the $65 ,000 in campaign funds, oifd ,000, ladies and gentlemen, for a campaign from a company that believes in sports and no sanctions in iran.

i heard about this stuff. baldwin: who are you talking about? thompson: i heard about it! baldwin: you can't talk take it. thompson: you want to interrupt me, joe biden, just give me a chance. the other thing is, ladies and gentlemen, she's talking about stock. i didn't know about this fact my stoke broker had purchased two shares two company stocks. i sold it. i sold today. i do not -- [laughter] i did not i found out today and i sold it today. i do not tolerate -- i do not agree with anybody doing business with iran. none whatsoever. and i think you should turn back return back the $60 ,000 you got from the company that supports no sanctions for iran. baldwin: first of all, companies cannot give campaign donations and i have never taken a campaign donation from a

corporation or a company. you know, it's individuals. maybe there's a super pac out there that i don't know about that is supporting you or whatever. but just to say there's a company you know you already misspoken. also, you know enough about the campaign finance laws to know that people or companies cannot give in that sort of quantity of money. so whatever you're saying, i have no idea what you're talking about. but it's ridiculous. back to the issue at hand thompson: are you saying you didn't receive any money from the counsel lib living earth. baldwin: i have not familiar with the counsel of living earth. gla thompson: they've been supporting you for ten years. baldwin: i've never heard of them. gla glover it was in the front page of the washington journal this morning. baldwin: i have never heard of the counsel of the living effort. the security questions before us, the preamble to the constitution which should be

guiding document for all of us talks about providing for the comedies sense and the general welfare. there is no responsibility that i take more seriously than trying to do everything we can to keep america safe. when i saw, you know, your shoot from the hip think later approach, and not earning -- learning from the mistakes were made in the past, it troubles me. >> moderator: we leave that there. i want to ask a followup on a slightly different topic, but related to foreign policy. i'll go first to you, governor thompson with this. president obama has repeatedly described as the only noble peace prize winner on the kill list. what is your position on the unmanned position -- and the targeted killing of terrorists? thompson: i think they are

something that is absolutely necessary. we have to be very careful, so we do not kill innocent bystanders. they are able to be utilized to take out many individuals from organization, they have been successful in pakistan, and afghanistan, and in lib bert -- libya. but the truth of the matter is we got to have all of our assets available. these individuals are terrorists. when i was -- >> moderator: thirty seconds. >> moderator: what is your position on these unmanned drones and the targeted killing? baldwin: first on the technology. i would say that unmanned drones are a huge and important advancement especially when you compare to the investment in cold war technology, there is important. and they're used for surveillance, used for intelligence gathering and as you note, they are also used for

strikes. i think with the new technology, we have to review the rules of engagement. we haven't yet with the new technology. >> moderator: thank you very much for that 0 religiousing followup. so far we have worked through jobs, health care, and middle east policy. it if there is to be any real movement in congress in the area in needs to be some form of bipartisan in congress. something that according to many voters around the state is a tall order. >> people on both ends of the issues republicans democrats, conservatives, liberals need come together. stop fights. >> i don't feel that either party has been productive in recent years. and i would like to see whoever is elected make some effort to improve relations between members of the two parties. >> >> they need to find comprise. it's time we find comprise.

we aren't going get anything done if we keep fights. >> moderator: with that, we wonder from each candidate this, can you name and describe one policy position on the part of your challenger that you would support? and we go first to you, governor thompson. but we just have one minute. thompson: pretty hard, but i would certainly support anything that we can do on a bipartisan basis. to be able to improve and cutback on spending. if there's anything we can do to hold down on spending, we have to do it. we have to learn to live within our means. we learned that in wisconsin, i did it as governor. and if there's some way that congresswoman baldwin can show me a rome that would save money at the federal government, i would more than likely enthusiastically support her. i haven't seen any yet, i hope someday i will be able to do

that. >> moderator: congresswoman baldwin? baldwin: let me start by saying there are many things upon which tomp my thompson agree. we actually, it may. be to a surprise in those in the room we work closely over my years in state legislature and when he was secretary. with regard to the campaign, i believe he supports the dream act. i do too. i believe i heard him at the last debate he believes we should bring our troops back from afghanistan as quickly and safely as possible. if that's what i heard, i'm in strenuous agreement with him on that. talked about senior care very briefly earlier. i'm a huge proponent of senior care and have fought both when he was bush's health department secretary and after he left to make sure that wisconsin would be able to keep the waiver they need in order to keep that operating. we work together on any number

of things. and that's why i will be successful as the united states senator because i can see the common ground. and i always have reached out for it. >> moderator: appreciate that. we're done with the unmoderated part. we want to ask you another question. we move to the topic of education. and it's often reported that the u.s. is falling behind the world competitively when it comes to matt and science exe sentty. even in the midst of cutting budget and eliminating programs, what is the best prescription for making u.s. students math and science literate. we will begin with congresswoman baldwin. glammed -- baldwin: well, i love this question. i was a math major in college double major in mathematic and political science. and i used to say that or somebody say that be and there would be an automobile gasp in the room. but i believe very strongly that

the key to economic growth in this country, as i said earlier when we talked about jobs, are investments in education, and innovation and research. we make things in this state. we have seen that decline. but we need to start doing it again and that means we need engineers, and scientists and other innovators and entrepreneurs. i agree with the president that we need to make a huge semp on emphasis on getting 100,000 new stem teachers across the schools. thompson: education is really basic. we have to do everything we possibly can to improve the education quality, the

graduates, college graduates, and vocational training in america. when i was governor, i was able to pick up two-thirds of the cost of education. the biggest increase ever so that local property taxpayers could have a break and we could put more money in to schools i increased the money if the university of wisconsin. i set up vocational programs for individuals who are not going the university. for skills training so that individuals can be a welder, or plumber, what whatever the case may be. that is the jobs out there that are going because we do not have the individuals that are skilled to do it. math and science is absolutely important. we have to put the dollars, we have to encourage individuals to go in to the programs because that is our future, ladies and gentlemen. and that is what i'm absolutely dedicated to do. pell grants is one way we can accomplish that. >> moderator: well, graduation congratulations both of you. you have gotten through the tough questions. it's time for the closing

statements. we flipped a coin and congresswoman baldwin won and choose to go last. tomp sob you get two minutes. thompson: thank you very much. thank you for the audience. it's been a spirited debate. but the truth of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, our country is very serious got some serious problems. we're $68 trillion in debt. $10 trillion of that is while my opponent has been in congress. we are over the gross national product. it means we're placed in a category with other countries like spain, like greece. i want to change that, ladies and gentlemen. i'm running, ladies and gentlemen, i have three great children and eight grandchildren. i'm running because of them but more importantly your children and grandchildren. we have always promised children and grandchildren in america they're going inherit a stronger

and freer and safer country. we can no longer say that. a baby born right now today is $51 ,000 in debt. for the debt that was accumulated in the last ten years. in the last four years, debt has gone up by $5.5 trillion. the people in congress have not even passed the budget in three and a half years. that's mall freezen in office. the spending goes up but taxes go up, and our country is facing a fiscal cliff. and if we don't do something about it, ladies and gentlemen, we're heading for a fiscal abis. who is the best person to do it? somebody that cut taxes 91 times or somebody that raised taxes 155 times. somebody that balanced the budget 14 years in a row with the democrats on a bipartisan basis or somebody that hasn't passed any budget in three and a half years? i'm looking out, ladies and gentlemen, for the future of our

great country. we're american, we can change this. we can balance the budget, bring those jobs back for 23 million americans are able to have a job just like they did when i was governor of the state of wisconsin. baldwin: thank you, i want to start by thanking, you tommy. for joining me on the stage. and also to our hosts and moderators. wisconsin public television, the live audience and those watches on television. it's been an enormous privilege to be engaged in it u.s. senate campaign. as i traveled the state, i've had an opportunity to listen. people up and up about the struggle. they're working hard, playing by the rules, trying to get ahead. too many of them are just getting by. and i've listened to their frustrations with the disconnect that they see between the

debates that are going on in washington, d.c., particularly in the tea party controlled house of representatives. the disconnect between those debates and their lives. they want is somebody who's going to u.s. senate and fight for them. not for wall street and the big banks, not for the big health insurance companies, not for the big drug companies, not for the tea party. somebody who is going to fight for them. that's what i've always done and pledge to do as your u.s. senator. it is a clear contrast in this race. tommy likes to talk a lot about what he did as governor in the 1980s and 1990s. the fact remains he spent the last seven years as a partner at the big powerful washington lobbying firm that lobbies on behalf of those very same special interests that i've spent my career standing up

against. there are differences on taxes, on how you want to attack the deficit, how we would grow the economy. it gets down to whose sigh are you on? the people or the powerful? i ask for your vote on november 6th and encourage torch everyone to participate in the collection. >> moderator: we thank you both for joining us. that is our debate. good night. leading up to the november 6th elections c-span campaign 2012 is brig bringing you live house, senate, and governor races from around the country. tonight at 8:00 eastern on the companion networking we'll take you to dplas texas for a senate debate ted cruise and former democratic paul sad leer. they are buying for the seat vacated by senator bailey. live coverage tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

>> it starts as an economic argument. men are having a harder time to the economy. women are adapting more easily. i can't tell you why. there are different periods where men have acaptained easily. then it's education and credential. the economy is fast changes. who knows what it's going to throw at it. women seem to be getting the hills than the men are. it seems to be more nimble. that filters down it to the society. in the book i talk about how that changes marriage, and our notions of and a quarter food -- fatherhood and what men and can't do. how young people have sex and make decisions and you really start to see it having an influence in our culture. >> tucker karlson joins hannah rosen to discuss the end of men. start night at 10:00 eastern and sunday night at 9:00 on after words this weekend on c span two booktv. >> it's a movie theater i write about, i had gone to visit it.

it's been there since 1947 which is the founding year of the country. it it showed film from all over the world from the united states to england from bollywood in india. to me it symbolized the k -- people have suffered over the last many decades in pakistan. and during one of the protests against video that insults the prophet mohammad. during one of the protest people turned against the movie theaters and burnt them. i don't really see that adds a protest against the west. i don't see that as a protest against the united states even though "avatar" was one of the movies you have gone to see at the theater. you had islamist activists who had not liked these movie theaters for decades.

way before the prophet mohammad film which was never shown in them anyway. and so they grabbed an opportunity to eye tack. and they whipped up a bunch of young people. there were teens involved who stole soda from the snack bar on the way to burn this movie theater, to torch it. and i argue in that piece that what they were really attacking is the nature of their own country, which perhaps they did not understand. and try toy say that with the greatest respect. who m aas a foreigner to say what your country is about. i know, from having studied the listen and listened to pakistan themselves it's a incredibly diverse place. it was borns a a more diverse place than it is today. lots of different culture and tradition, lots of different ways to be. that movie theater symbolized pakistan. and that is what people burned when they set it on fire. more with "instant city."

author sunday at 8:00 on c-span q & a. up next a u.s. house debate from the minnesota eighth district. chip is being challenged by former u.s. congressman rick no lan. he represented the sixth district in minnesota for three terms from 19 5eu78 to 1981. hosted by ksp tv in saint paul, minnesota. it's under twenty minutes. ♪ >> moderator: district race where democrats want to win the congressional seat back. but the republican incumbent is fight farring second term. the eighth district extends from northeastern minnesota and stretches to just north of the twin cities metro area. joining me now republican incumbent chip is seeking the

second term in congress. he's a former airline pilot and navy veteran. democrat rick is a former congressman who served the old sixth district. he was elected in 1974 and in the early '80s to pursue a business career. gentleman, thank you for taking time to join us. it's interesting this is your only debate that will be televised throughout the congressional district and most voters are getting their information about the two of you through television commercials. so i want to show you each a commercial, and then have you respond to some of the things that are being said about each of you. let's start with an atd that targets chip. >> ever ♪ >> chip wept to washington and brought back some strange ideas. instead of town hall meetings. he drives a $1,000 a month suv. a taxpayer expense. and chip voted to end the current medicare system and make seniors pay 4eu6d 00 a year more. while millionaires get more tax

cuts. chip was supposed to take minnesota values to washington, not the other way around. the majority pack is responsible for the content of the advertisement. >> it is a catchy tune. you can't get out of head. rick, do you standby the things said about your opponent. >> there are more important issues in the election contest than car allowances. it is about taxes and spending priority. it is about medicare and how we go forward in this country. i for one, i don't like these attack ads. they -- they really add little to the debate, and you'll notice my ads that i'm responsible for are positive. they're telling who rick no nolan is and the direction i want to see the company go. i think that's the way campaigns should be. >> two thing until the ad you adopt think are important are

the suv car allowance and the issue whether you have to pay to see him at the town hall meeting. >> that's wrong. you don't have to pay noib see chip. all you have to cois call him and use the mail. but other than that. >> the issue about medicare and tax breaks for mill area you agree. >> yes, i do. but, you know, more importantly, i have been in the eighth district all of my life. and i grew my business there, raised my family there, between our children, and their spouses, and grandchildren, and aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews and you have a lot of friends. and you develop a measure respect for you. here's this outside money coming from sheldon or the coke brothers. you don't even know. and you spent a lifetime building a reputation and there's people in there trying to destroy it. and i have nothing but republican for chip.

we have a difference of opinion as to distribution. i don't want to see people running ads attacking a good man and gentleman. anymore than i want to see them attacking me and my family and reputation. >> moderator: obviously there are voters who will see this and think you're spending money willie nilly on suv and so you to pay money to see you. unfortunate lay lot of people this is where they get their information is from the television ads. >> the ads you brought out today was pulled from wcco because it was so wrong. one thing, for example, it's illegal for me to tape take any type of contribution to see. ad for the vehicle for $1,000. we did a cost analysis on it. and they -- investigated completely discredited. our first -- because we have over 300 mobile officers in our district we have 29 town halls. in our first month it cost $3,000 to pay mileage.

we're getting a tax break. we gave $94,000 back to the u.s. treasury. we were only member in the house of representatives to do it. let's take a look at the ad that targets rick. >> disco was rick was in congress. raising own payroll attacking medicare. no lane voted himself four pay residents and wanted to eliminate medicare. he admitted he become more radical. wow, now he supports a plan that slices medicare by $700 billion. defeat rick nolan. he's still radical. >> moderator: i think we can agree disco was king back then. [laughter] but the rest of it? you brought up on occasion and in the last debate that rick no lane did vote to raise his own pay. is that fair game. >> in respect to the congressman, he did raise his

time four times in six years. he brought his pay up close to 50%. we saw congressman no basically not show up for work at the same time. that's true about the medicare. the obamacare -- money not coming directly from beneficiary. money that is coming out of medicare. it's going pay for obamacare. so robbing our seniors of $716 billion to pay for obamacare. in with regards to medicare. we have a plan. unfortunately, the democrats do not have a plan other than let it go bankrupt in 2022. so the ad was pretty accurate. all the fact checker said the ad was mislading, unfalse, nonsensical, it was ridiculous. that's what the fact checker said about the ad.

they were accurate. .. i'm going to protect and preserve medicare. and the houseplant come if you're 50 fighters on older, nothing changes, correct?

>> i'm trying to think of a delicate way to say this, but the thought that medicare is good enough for appearance, good enough for us and somehow it's not good enough for children, we're going to throw them under the bus and eliminate medicare as we know it. and you know, congressman, the economists in "the wall street journal" has said that she would invite and others voted to do with medicare as we know it. it is good enough for us and our parents and ought to be good enough for kids. someone in 2022 medicare is insolvent. the medicare trustees telesat. to do nothing as dereliction of duty. if you're 50 fighters older connecting changes. if you're 54 years in agar, like me, something's got a change because unless we do something, we will have nothing. this takes leadership. wonder it to congress it takes leadership to make these tough

decisions. you have to make decisions. >> moderator: is this why medicare plan a voucher in your mind? cravaak: the fact checkers have said is a voucher system -- of course it turns seniors back over to the private insurance industry in the same way you put posts to take social security and turn that over to wall street. cravaak: was not even talk about social security. social security something completely different than the houseplant. show me where it says voucher system. it is a premium support model that instantly was brought up by alice rivlin in the clinton administration. she actually supports the paul ryan plan and so does erskine bowles, support divine plan

because if we do nothing with medicare, goes insolvent. that means their current seniors depending on medicare when it goes bankrupt will get less services. >> moderator: what my topic in this segment. obamacare, the president has adopted it. do you believe it is a government takeover and as you go to scrap in the next congress? nolan: absolutely. o-oscar 35,000 per level. not when one member of congress writer. he didn't go to the community structure. two hours later were voting on it. 2700 pages. no one read it, voted on it. that bureaucrats are going to this right now. there have victory. they could another 30,000 pages of rules and regulations. obamacare is a takeover. the independent payment advisory board, an unelected, unaccountable board making medical decisions for seniors. >> moderator: and you ascribe a dependent care coverage?

nolan: dysart in private models already. it's ever been in insurance plan. >> moderator: what would happen if obamacare was scrapped altogether? nolan: for one thing, we now have been sure that people cannot be denied because of a preexisting condition. we've enable parents to keep their children covered up to the age of 26. person on tax related measures in there that the insurance industry has said may save it to a trillion dollars by streamlining a hold lamberson process. and that's not to say that somewhere down the road there might not be some changes as we see this thing implementing. of course is that some things we've got to do to get medicare and social security, but the answer is not to do away and turns seniors over to the insurance industry. when you eliminate the program. cravaak: in the program herself,

nothing changes for you. under alice rivlin and paul ryan, there's a choice if you wish traditional medicare come you can't. there are insurance companies that would not insure you get a preexisting condition. cravaak: this will give seniors an american people options. the thinnest of options and competition is the key in bringing down lower costs. nolan: airtouch are given options to reprogram the bit like our parents and grandparents are misguided because for us, but not good for a case. people work for those programs, paid for them. they are earned benefits. will fix it. were not going to do do with it a proposed internet to the insurance industry. >> moderator: were just getting started. we'll talk with the jobs issue, the mainichi. those inner china needs to start. that will be coming up next in the eighth district congressional race continues in just a moment.

and were back. with no one coming presliced in front of a georgia-pacific plans and held a news conference and said congressman cravaak stood back and did nothing to save and a hundred 50 people lost their jobs. could you have say that if you're in congress? nolan: you know, i think we can. one of the things we have to do is change the tax and trade policy and voting for the right budget has voted to extend the kind of tax cut to help facilitate these companies moving their jobs in manufacturing offshore. those are some of the tax cuts i think we need to eliminate. we can use the revenue to balance our budget than we need to start using our tax and trade policy to incentivize a domestic manufacturing, keep manufacture more belongs. >> moderator: is a good job of government to save individual companies? cravaak: was endorsed by the national federation of businesses and are by national association of manufacturers. we have to incentivize a

small-business owner to create jobs. with the progrowth tax reform to ensure that small businesses get the break they need a plot with all americans actually in a very complicated tax code gives us how to get people back to work. seven out of 10 people are employed. that's irony of history because we are small towns. >> moderator: let's talk about the mining industry. obviously create another 2.6 also to help support the district. what would you do to boost the number of jobs? nolan: i've always been for mining. i'll always be for mining. i'm a small business man. i understand balancing budgets and meeting payrolls and getting things done and i know it stimulates business and what stimulates jobs. and it's not more tax cuts for the super rich. right now american corporations are sitting on chileans of dollars. the banks are sitting at trillions of dollars. they don't need more tax breaks. but they need is demand for their product.

when you have demand for your product, then you are stimulated to invest in new equipment, new personnel immediate demand by rebuilding this middle class. that's where demand comes. not tax breaks for the rich. cravaak: i've been laser focused on mining before foreign assignment to congress. i have the buy american film and that which our industry on american products, expediting a permanent process to a streamlining the fact. but in all fairness to the congressman here, he's had some challenges in his own personal experience with business and in addition to that with the world trade center. quite frankly was a complete failure. governor backed away from it unfortunately i didn't even attend the ribbon cutting ceremony and in the interim time period, respectfully, the congressmen give themselves a raise, became the highest state

paid employee around. give it $200,000 golden parachute taken away who finally said enough of assaulted at a terrible loss. >> moderator: you get a chance to respond to that. nolan: is a good project. we raised almost $100 million to just a facility come be created good jobs. many who live in the eighth congressional district. i worked for the first three years as a volunteer, chairman spearheading a project, put together the complex point in turn joint venture. help minnesota companies expand escorts. 320,000 new jobs were created in the world trade center helped contribute an enormous amount of them. trent lott was a $5.5 million loss. it was sold at much less than it costs. nolan: who may have considered it a failure. the men and women in the eighth

district who got good jobs building that. >> moderator: gentlemen, running out of time. in each of 30 seconds to make a closing statement. you can use that to rebut what you just heard. let's start with chip cravaak. cravaak: it's been an honor to serve the minimum minute eighth district. we are two very different courses. one is of prosperity insolvency. looking forward to the vest interest of the next generation of americans. the other courses were overseen for the last for years. more data, more doubt in my decline. i believe in a smaller government. i believe getting our country back on track. thank you irish diaspora but to continue on with the great people of minnesota. >> moderator: rick nolan, 30 seconds. nolan: i'm a businessman, not a creature of spirit you create jobs. not voting is the congressman has to nominate medicare as we

know it. not voting come as a congressman has come in to get companies tax loopholes and incentives to move their manufacturing overseas. i know how to create jobs. i've created jobs. we do this by building a middle classes. the trickle-down economics doesn't work. that's what got us into trouble. we've got to build it back up from the middle out. >> moderator: chip cravaak, rick nolan, aims to both of you for being here and best to the both of you in campaign trail.

[cheers and applause] >> we've made very clear that they do not share that view. they do not believe a woman has a right to control her own body. romney and ryan made it clear -- it's clear they don't believe in protect and in getting people access to health care. they're prepared to turn the decisions back to the insurance companies. check with your daughters up there. check with them. they get charged 50% more on average for the same health care is your son gets charged, 50%

more. it's literally a preexisting condition. [laughter] serious. senator obama's legislation said that cannot go on. they are not allowed to do that. [cheers and applause] after listening to congressman ryan, the view that he expressed on behalf of governor romney. how many of you think after a romney appointed supreme court -- [inaudible] ladies and gentlemen, the governor asked the correct question about equal pay. [laughter] you think i'm making this up. he said i'd binders full of qualified